Blog Comments

I think burglarizing someone's home is inherently ‘reprehensible conduct’ committed ‘with some form of scienter,’” and I can't understand why you don't. And I don't see the significance of whether the home was occupied. Burglars never know for sure whether a home has someone in it.

I once asked you why you are so sympathetic towards criminals and you responded with a line from For Whom the Bell Tolls, i.e., they are coming for someone else now but they will be coming for you later. Or something to that effect. That may be true, but I feel more off a need for protection from criminals than I do for protection from the law.

The Hill reports on January 11 that Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Alabama), who in 2014 claimed that immigration reform itself was a "war on whites", has now said the same thing about the opposition to confirming Jeff Sessions as attorney general.

See:

GOP rep: Sessions attacks part of 'war on whites'

(Sorry, I cannot find a link that works - please go to Google.)

Isn't it about time for America to acknowledge that opposition to immigration, first and foremost, above all else, always has been and still is an expression of racial prejudice - of a belief that white people are racially superior to all others?

America's tragedy is that Donald Trump and his incoming administration are Making Anti-Immigrant Racism Great Again, in the minds of all too many Americans.

My original comment follows:

The above is a compelling, powerful article, but it only deals with one aspect of the tremendous damage that Sessions can and no doubt will cause to America's immigration system - namely destroying due process on the enforcement or deportation side of the equation.

The other side of the equation, namely the power that Sessions will have to destroy our employment-based legal immigration system by harassing and intimidating US employers who hire foreign workers with H-1B or other legal employment based visas through Trumped-up (no pun intended) criminal investigations or prosecutions, is just as dangerous.

Thirty years ago, when he was a US attorney in Alabama, Sessions had no compunctions about bringing groundless "voter fraud" criminal charges against African-American voting rights workers, who were acquitted of all counts. Is there any reason to think he has changed?

Sessions has made clear again and again that he regards legal foreign workers as threats to the jobs, wages and living standards of American workers (a class of people he has not shown much interest in helping outside the immigration context - when has he ever supported union rights or minimum wage laws?).

But are these legal foreign workers (over 1,000 of whom Sessions' boss, Donald Trump, has hired through though his businesses in various legal visa programs) really a "threat" to America because of their jobs and working conditions?

Or is it because of the color of their skin or the non-white areas of the world they come from?

The answer to this question is clear. Sessions is on record (in his January, 2015 immigration "Handbook" for the 114th Congress - see page 10 of that document), as saying that he supports the 1924 Coolidge era immigration restrictions which were among the most bigoted and racially biased in America's entire history.

As is certainly well known to Sessions, the 1924 law which he praised so highly only two years ago, excluded not only Asians, Africans and Middle Easterners, but also Eastern European Jews and Southern European Catholics, as well as many other immigrants who were considered to be of inferior racial "stock" under the "eugenics" theories of the time which had so much influence on Adolf Hitler.

Has Sessions changed his racial views on immigration
since 2015? Where is there even the slightest sign that he has done so?

Order in the Playpen is a new area for me. I have no previous experience in this area and this post helped me a lot to know more about it. I am a writer in research paper writing service reviews company. If you need any writing help please contact us.

While Judge Weil's claim that 3 or 4 year olds may be able to represent themselves effective in removal proceedings may seem ridiculous, his overarching point, that the determination of whether a child can represent himself or should be appointed counsel (at government expense) should be made on a case by case basis, is by no means so. Any particular age limit beyond which one may be deemed able to represent oneself is inevitably going to be arbitrary. My suspicion is that in practice most judges will err on the side of caution, not to mention choosing the option which requires the least time and effort on their part to justify, and holds the lowest chance of them being reversed on appeal. Consequently, I believe that far more children will end up with appointed counsel if the judge is required to make a determination of their ability to comprehend proceedings, then if some arbitrary age limit is simply imposed. Accordingly, I believe that AILA as a group should support case by case rules for the appointment of counsel for juveniles over black letter rules, which are apt to be far more restrictive.

How can someone like this be allowed to stay on the bench and call himself a judge? At the same time, it is important to maintain a sense of perspective. Judge Weil's ability to damage our immigration system, and America itself, is like a ripple in the pond, compared to that of a tsunami by the name of Donald Trump.

Roger Algase
Attorney at Law

Harry DeMell
-
12-22-2015 04:05 PM

Lory:

I would recommend that you add the actual statute as stated in title 8 USC 1101(a)(42) to your article.

I have argued in this publication that most of the Syrians fleeing the conflict in their country are not refugees according to the black and white page of the law. By stretching the definition to cover everyone we demean the very term 'refugee'.

We cannot take in each and very person who has any claim to danger. The whole country would qualify. Some such as Christians, Yazidis and political opponents of the regime have a strong claim under the statute. Decades of well meaning arguments on behalf of individual aliens by their attorneys (including me) have stretched the definition of refugee to the limit.

Anyone claiming refugee or asylee status in the United States has the burden by the preponderance of the evidence to make a prima face case as a refugee as defined under the law. That is not the same thing as a showing of general danger.

It always astonished me that at immigration law conferences the distinction between refugees and those in fear of general danger is rarely made.

Claiming that these people are "really" refugees is not a substitute for complying with the statute.

Harry DeMell

Nolan Rappaport
-
04-13-2015 04:49 PM

If you want additional support for opposing the detention of children seeking asylum, see my article, Why is Australia being criticized for the way it treats asylum seekers and unaccompanied alien children? (March 20, 2015), http://discuss.ilw.com/content.php?4182-Article-Why-is-Australia-being-criticized-for-the-way-it-treats-asylum-seekers-and-unaccompanied-alien-children-By-Nolan-Rappaport

Registered
-
10-01-2014 06:07 PM

Someone12.......Is that you Adam? I am really surprised at you.

Originally Posted by Someone12

Remind us again....why are the US taxpayers responsible for living conditions in other countries? Why should we shell out mucho dinero for brats who don't even belong here? Why aren't the oh-so-concerned attorneys of AILA taking in several of these illegal brats into their homes, and paying for their education, etc? (simple: immigration attorneys would not spend a nickel on someone else...they just want billable hours)/..
So don't tell the US taxpayer that he or she is somehow responsible for brats/living conditions, etc, in some other country outside the US of A....not our problem...but...if you, the immigration attorney(s) are so seemingly interested (doubtful), then YOU take in some of these brats and care for them yourselves....(and of course, there is an Easter bunny)

Someone12
-
10-01-2014 04:14 PM

Remind us again....why are the US taxpayers responsible for living conditions in other countries? Why should we shell out mucho dinero for brats who don't even belong here? Why aren't the oh-so-concerned attorneys of AILA taking in several of these illegal brats into their homes, and paying for their education, etc? (simple: immigration attorneys would not spend a nickel on someone else...they just want billable hours)/..
So don't tell the US taxpayer that he or she is somehow responsible for brats/living conditions, etc, in some other country outside the US of A....not our problem...but...if you, the immigration attorney(s) are so seemingly interested (doubtful), then YOU take in some of these brats and care for them yourselves....(and of course, there is an Easter bunny)

EusebiaAq
-
10-01-2014 04:05 PM

Our President Obama has become aware that 1,000 and 1,000 + Latino Voters are going to "BOYCOTT HIM"come Nov.4,2014 and 2016 for his treatment of Latino migrants ,brown Latin Babies and Massive Latino Ethnic Cleansing deportations across America. So Mr. Obama has given us another "Meatless Bone" just in time for Nov.4,2014 . He has no care when it comes to these "Brown Babies" just for The Power of his Party. NOTHING VOTING Nov.4.2014 or in 2016 NO LONGER an Obama
Democratic "pimped out Voter". ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

My heart goes out to any human being who is suffering at the hands of other human beings. But the US government is heartless and should be ashamed of themselves - but then the history of our country is shrouded in shame.

But look on the bright side . . . if word spreads south about the abhorrent conditions, maybe it will dissuade followers who will no longer come north seeking the land of milk and honey. They will understand that the bees have stopped producing and they are on their own.

Rocky Silva
-
08-15-2013 12:16 PM

significant possibility is NOT determined by the officer. If the applicant mentions certain words during the interview then the specially trained asylum officer MUST find the claim positive otherwise it is reviewed by USCIS who will kick it back to be documented as a positive or reinterviewed. The officer has none of the discretion that they should. Further, USCIS cherry picks case law from whatever circuit they think will help applicants have a positive CF interview, even if an applicant enters the U.S. in a southwestern jurisdiction and is detained there. Another factor that you absolutely ignore is that these interview officers, interview 5 or 6 cases per day and must complete ALL paperwork by the end of that 8 hour work day. Therefore, they have limited time to heavily document a negative finding, which is necessary for the negative case to clear the biased HQ review. It is impossible to successfully submit a negative credible fear finding based on credibility. Applicants fabricate stories that officers easily find serious credibility problems with, however USCIS ensures that the officers' workload is such that the officers can would never have time to document the case enough to get through the applicant biased HQ review. The Credible Fear program is a joke and is possibly criminal fraud on the part of USCIS management.